Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

If we are talking about a coordinated aggressive action to cripple the economy of a non-superpower nation, like today it requires a superpower to protect it.

If we are talking about a coordinated aggressive action to cripple the economy of a superpower nation, you're basically triggering "mutually assured destruction". As such its most productive to assume that doesn't occur.



The first nation to adopt it would be vulnerable immediately, without any real risk to other nations performing a 51% attack.

Why anyone out themselves in harm’s way like that?


Yeah, that is an interesting question. Probably best to ask Coinbase, Tesla and Square. I don't have a good answer for you. The bad answer is this:

Risk isn't inherently a deterrent. If the reward is perceived to be high enough, there will be a first adopter.


Now it is too late to edit, I see an annoying spelling mistake. Should be “put themselves”, not “out themselves”.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: